downlords-faf-client
downlords-faf-client copied to clipboard
FAForever
Notify when people near your rating search matchmaker
Especially high level players wish for a notification that informs them about other people searching ladder that they can match with. While it is especially beneficial for high rated people, because they have the hardest time to find games at all, it will also be interesting for lower rated players as it nudges them to queue up when there is activity in the queue. The python client had a persistent notification at the bottom for this that would directly launch you into a game when you clicked it. We can't use the old behaviour because matching happens in intervals now, but we could automatically queue people up for the appropriate queue when they click the notification. Especially for the team matchmaker queues we can't guarantee a game either, but we could be more vague like "Someone with similar rating is searching for a XvX game. Click here to join them.".
What is still unsolved is where that notification should appear. Ideally it would be visible from every tab in the client while being somewhat unintrusive, so you don't get annoyed by it while doing something else in the client. Maybe the status bar at the bottom could be used for this, but I am not sure if it provides enough space.
I'm not sure. I think the server is still sending rating ranges and the client is just ignoring them. I would have to look this up. At least it wouldn't be complicated to reimplement this on the server
Personally I never understood the boundary_75 and boundary_80 and thought it was said they just don't work with the party system and what not.
Yea looks like it just takes the first players rating and ignores the rest.
https://github.com/FAForever/server/blob/1912be97b54faf61e92cdb78e3fe67b11a8f7559/server/matchmaker/search.py#L115-L132
Also according to my v2 plan (which to be fair I have not worked on in probably a year) those fields are deprecated and shouldn’t be used. https://github.com/FAForever/server/issues/573
I would be ok with redoing the implementation in a better way. Details of that should probably go on a server issue.
